AN OBSCENE OMISSION
NEW YORK POST
Editorial
November 4, 2005
There is saintliness in a soldier's prospective acceptance of an honorable death in combat. To diminish such a deed, especially in service of a political agenda, approaches sacrilege.
So it was with the manner in which The New York Times last week noted the death of Cpl. Jeffrey Starr, USMC, of Snohomish, Wash., who was killed in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour of duty in Iraq.
The young Marine's death was a centerpiece in the Times' coverage of America's 2,000th combat death in Iraq.
The newspaper's overview of the war is no secret: To hear the Times tell it, Americans are being slaughtered for no reason in an unjust war.
To bolster its argument, the Times last week publicly slandered the memory of a genuine American hero — Cpl. Starr.
In a profile of multiple-tour vets, the Times wrote about Starr — who served in the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment — and quoted from a letter to his girlfriend found on his computer after his death. "I kind of predicted this," it read, referring to his death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
There it is — dark, foreboding, pessimistic, without any suggestion that he believed he was in Iraq for a valid purpose.
But, as columnist Michelle Malkin disclosed on these pages two days ago, after hearing from Starr's family, there was more to his letter — much more.
"I don't regret going," he wrote. "Everybody dies — but few get to do it for something as important as freedom."
Nor did he have any doubts or questions about his mission: "It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq, [but] it's not to me. . . . I'm here trying to help these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives.
"To me, that is why I died," wrote Starr. "Others have died for my freedom — now this is my mark."
Again: "Others have died for my freedom — now this is my mark."
Those words ought to be chiseled in granite somewhere.
But, for The New York Times, they weren't fit to print.
After all, they don't mesh with the anti-war message relentlessly promulgated by the self-proclaimed paper of record.
Jeffrey Starr's uncle wrote the Times, asking the editors to "honor Jeff by completing the story."
There was no response.
Reporter James Dao, who wrote the article, did reply to one complaining reader, insisting "there is nothing 'anti-war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then questioning whether anyone who hasn't been in Iraq has the right to "object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear."
Late yesterday, the Times released a statement defending Dao's article as "entirely fair," since it noted that Cpl. Starr had "remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do."
That's just pathetic.
Fairness — and accuracy — demanded more than simply a mention that Jeffrey Starr supported the war. And if his letter was worth quoting because of what it revealed about his state of mind, it was worth quoting in its entirety.
Jeffrey Starr's final letter speaks as persuasively and convincingly — yet simply — as anything else that has been spoken or written about why the war was rightly named Operation Iraqi Freedom.
His words are an eternal testimonial to the heroic tradition of the United States Marine Corps and to the enduring nobility of his unqualified — indeed, saintly — personal sacrifice.
The disgraceful abridgement published by The New York Times profanes Cpl. Starr's heroism; that the newspaper seems not to understand what it has done is equally shocking.
nypost.com |
